🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.